From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ... |
Date: | 2002-01-07 02:17:22 |
Message-ID: | 3C390532.356455E8@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> Doesn't bother me a whole lot; I don't think that's what the die
> >> interrupt is for. In my mind the main reason die() exists is to
> >> behave reasonably when the system is being shut down and init has
> >> sent SIGTERM to all processes.
>
> > In my mind the main reason die() exists is to kill individual
> > backends which seems to be in trouble without causing
> > the database-wide restart.
>
> [ raises eyebrow ] That isn't recommended procedure or even documented
> anywhere, AFAIR.
I don't call it a dbms unless it has a will to limit a
trouble locally.
Anyway it seems too late to complain. I was foolish enough
to have overlooked the very significant change that introduced
the dominant ImmediateInterruptOK variable.
Sigh... Where were my eyes ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | petere | 2002-01-07 02:29:19 | pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/biblio.sgml oc/src/sgml/dat ... |
Previous Message | tgl | 2002-01-06 21:40:08 | pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c |